Psychosocial Safety: Shifting from Equality to Equity
Dave Elniski
AMTA Industry Advisor, Safety & Compliance
Whether federally [1] or provincially [2] regulated, trucking companies need to address psychosocial hazards in their occupational health and safety programs. In a recent survey, AMTA found confidence around addressing psychological and psychosocial safety to be limited, especially amongst small carriers [3].
Psychosocial hazards are social, environmental, and psychological things in someone’s workplace that can negatively affect their mental wellbeing. Obvious examples include bullying and harassment; however, subtlety is key when identifying these hazards. To illustrate this point, an defective tire is a physical safety hazard but can sometimes also hint at a psychosocial hazard. A company that would immediately make arrangements to repair the tire and pay their driver for the downtime would probably not have a psychosocial component to the defective tire. However, a company that pressures their driver to drive on the defective tire, makes it challenging to get the repair done, and does not pay them for the repair time would be exposing the driver to the psychosocial hazards of stress and unrealistic expectations.
Managing psychosocial hazards is new territory for many organisations and represents a fundamental shift in the way many view occupational health and safety. Why? Because psychosocial hazards stem from parts of organisations often not included in the safety program’s scope. Mental wellbeing is tied to stress, so stressors in an organisation need to be evaluated. If management has created a stressful working environment, then management is producing psychosocial hazards.
To truly address psychosocial hazards, then, it should be obvious that management will need to be onboard, be able to take feedback, and be willing to examine themselves critically. If they are not, efforts to improve psychosocial safety will not penetrate the entire organisation. It is sufficient, in a basic safety program, for management to sign the policies, put some money towards hazard controls, and at least not obviously break their own rules. But, more involvement and commitment will be needed to improve psychosocial safety.
So what about equity and equality? These concepts are critical to addressing psychosocial hazards. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equity, on the other hand, is treating people differently to bring about equal outcomes.
To show the difference, consider a workplace lunch being provided to all staff. In this example, the outcome is everyone having a satisfying lunch. An equality approach could be to provide the same exact food for everyone. But, this outcome will not be met if some people will not eat the standard meal at all or will only eat performatively without enjoying themselves. An approach of equity can be used to improve the chance the event will meet its intended outcome. Equity, in this example, would take the form of having staff choose their preferred meal from a list of many options, options that take into account religious, cultural, and health factors. Such a lunch spread may be varied and not appear to be in the spirit of equality. But remember, the desired outcome is everyone having a satisfying lunch, something far more important than having the lunch spread simply appear to be equal. This outcome can best be achieved through unequal lunch options. This is equity: addressing diverse needs and preferences for the purpose of meeting truly important outcomes.
Equity and fairness go hand in hand. People are quick to pick up on unfair practices. In trucking, drivers will quickly detect unfair practices like dispatcher favouritism. Unfair practices like this create problems and can increase stress. Imagine believing you need to please a certain individual just so you will receive the loads needed to earn enough money to pay your bills: that’s stressful. Now, obvious dispatch favoritism is contrary to both equity and equality and would likely be addressed by most carriers if it was brought to management’s attention.
There are other forms of unfairness – inequity – that are tolerated in some companies, though. One common example is an unwillingness to modify a job for the needs of different individuals. A reluctance to modify something to better align the job with a driver’s personal life is often justified using equality-based language: “everyone does the same job”, “we take anyone who can do the work”, “we do not make exceptions”. On the surface, it does not look like anything is wrong with such an approach. After all, what is bad about ensuring people are treated equally? Well, the problem is that treating people equally does not always mean treating them fairly.
It is easy to initially argue fairness from an equality perspective. But, the big assumption being made is that individual people will not vary in their ability to perform to a necessary standard. There are some minimum standards for many jobs that cannot be lowered for critical safety and performance reasons; for example, a truck driver needs to be able to see. However, many times there can be modifications without significant negative impacts. If a truck driver has suffered an injury that prevents them from doing a certain part of their original job, it is entirely possible their job could be modified to help them stay, a benefit to them and to the employer. This is equity, and it is kind.
If people know their employer is willing to help them perform well in their role while helping them address their personal situations they will be more likely to feel secure while work, a psychosocial positive. For example, if a flatbed driver is not paid for tarping, then those who are slow tarpers are financially punished. We might accept this in the short term for someone who is new to tarping since they will likely get faster with experience, but what about someone who is a slower tarper due to an injury or age? Equality thinking could justify paying this person less because the tarping task is the same for everyone, but such thinking basically forces this person out of the job. Equity thinking could help this person participate more fully in the job by considering measures such as assistive technology or a modified pay structure.
In this way, the link between psychosocial safety and equity starts to become clear. We would generally accept that personal protective equipment (PPE) needs to be fitted to individual people to be effective; that’s another example of equity, and it is obvious that the equality one-size-fits all approach would not be suitable for things like fall protection harnesses and respirators. Psychosocial safety demands we take this thinking into other parts of the organisation and consider, more broadly, how we assess hazards.
Equality is not bad, but it can be unkind when there is no equity. Psychosocial safety demands kindness, fairness, and understanding. To put it another way, people need to believe their employer will work with them to address their personal concerns to help them experience similar positive outcomes to others. This is using equity to bring about equality.
References
1 – Province of Alberta. 2021. “Purposes of the Act.” In Occupational Health and Safety Act. SA 2020 Ch. O-2.2. Accessed May 25th, 2022, https://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=O02P2.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779826728
2 – Government of Canada. 2021. “Part II Occupational Health and Safety.” Canada Labour Code. R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2. Accessed May 25th, 2022, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/L-2.pdf
3 – Alberta Motor Transport Association. 2022. “Psychosocial Hazards Survey Results: A Snapshort of Out Industry and Introduction to AMTA’s Psychosocial Hazards Guide.” Accessed May 25th, 2022, https://amta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Psychosocial-Survey-2.pdf